Introduction to Logic

SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management

Studies
Name of School – Kirit P. Mehta School of Law

Philosophy 1
 Philosophy 1
Philosophy means love of “Wisdom” or “Love for Knowledge”.

Philosophy is a subject matter that people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths
about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other.

Philosophy is useful to learning life skills such as critical thinking and reasoning.

The study of philosophy is divided into different fields.

Epistemology, Metaphysics, Ethics, Logic

Philosophy develops critical reasoning skills, clarity in thought and language, and competence
in synthesizing a good deal of information into a systematic, coherent picture. These abilities
form a core part of the skill set.
Epistemology

❖ Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It is primarily concerned with

what we can know about the world and how we can know it. Typical
questions of concern in epistemology are:

● What is knowledge?
● How do we gain knowledge?
● How can we justify what we know?
Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality and the world. In metaphysics
philosophers asks questions as:
● Is there a God?
● What is truth?
● What is a person? What makes a person the same through time?
● Is the world strictly composed of matter?
● Do people have minds? If so, how is the mind related to the body?
● Do people have free wills?
● What is it for one event to cause another?
 Ethics
The study of ethics often concerns what we ought to do and what it would be best to
do. In struggling with this issue, larger questions about what is good and right arise.
So, the ethicist attempts to answer such questions as:
● What is good? What makes actions or people good?
● What is right? What makes actions right?
● Is morality objective or subjective?
● How should I treat others?
Logic

Another important aspect of the study of philosophy is the arguments or reasons

given for people’s answers to these questions. To this end philosophers employ
logic to study the nature and structure of arguments. Logicians ask such questions
as:
● What constitutes "good" or "bad" reasoning?
● How do we determine whether a given piece of reasoning is good or bad?
Introduction to Logic
❖ Logic is one of the oldest intellectual disciplines in human history. It dates back to Aristotle.

❖ It has been studied through the centuries by people like Leibniz, Boole, Russell, Turing, and many others.
And it is still a subject of active investigation today.

❖ We use Logic in just about everything we do. We use it in our professional discussions. We use it in our
personal conversations.

❖ We the language of Logic to state observations, to define concepts, and to formalize theories.

❖ We use logical proofs to convince others of our conclusions.

❖ We start with a discussion of the key elements of Logic.

What Is Logic
❖ Logic is a study of arguments and reasoning. It is a study of argumentation. In other words,

logic is what evaluates arguments in terms of validity or invalidity.

❖ Arguments consists of premise and conclusion.

● Premises - This is something that is presupposed.

Conclusion - What follows from the Premises.

❖ Louis 2nd is a Medieval king. T

❖ NO Medieval King has power. F
❖ Louis 2nd does not have power. T/F
“Arguments” can be discussed in terms of validity and
Invalidity -
❖ An argument is a group of statements. A statement is a sentence that is either true
or false—in other words, typically a declarative sentence.

❖ Valid Arguments -

❖ When the conclusion really follows from the premises.

➢ Medieval Kings do not have power. (Premises -1 ) T
➢ Louis 2nd is not a Medieval king. (Premises -2) T
➢ (So) Louis 2nd does not have power. (Conclusion) F
Invalid Arguments -

❖ Invalid Arguments - When the premises do not follow from the conclusion.
No Medieval King has power. (Premises -1 ) T (TTF- Invalid)
➢ Louis 2nd is a Medieval king. (Premises -2) T
➢ (So) Louis 2nd has power. (Conclusion) F

❖ Here the argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the Premises.
Arguments can be good or bad, Valid and Invalid, but
not true and false.
● Questions, proposals, suggestions, commands, and exclamations usually cannot, and
so are not usually classified as statements.
● The following sentences are not statements:
● Logic is a subject matter of Philosophy. T/F
● Let’s go to a movie tonight. (proposal)
● I suggest you get contact lenses. (suggestion)
● Turn off the TV right now. (command)
● Fantastic! (exclamation)
❖ Logic deals with propositions (Assertive/declarative) that can be discussed in terms of truth/falsity.
What is an argument concerned with
● An argument is a group of statements. A statement is a sentence that is either true
or false—in other words, typically a declarative sentence.
● An argument is concerned with declarative sentences.
One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able to
distinguish premises from conclusions.

Conclusion indicator

 For us to be able to recognize the conclusion and distinguish it from premises there
are some key words.
● Therefore, accordingly entails that, wherefore, we may conclude hence
Thus, it must be that, it follows that, consequently, for this reason, implies that, we may
infer so, as a result.
Premise Indicator

● Since, in that seeing that

● as indicated by, may be inferred from, for the reason that
● because as inasmuch as
● for given that owing to
 Inductive and Deductive Arguments
● A deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true.
Necessarily true.

 All Humans are mortal A. .

 All men are humans B
 Therefore all men are mortal. Therefore C.

● An inductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the
premises are true.

● Shashi and varsha are sisters.

● Shashi lives in Ahmedabad.
● Therefore, this may be the case that Varsha also lives in Ahmedabad. (not necessarily true)

● Whenever an argument makes a prediction about the future, there lies some uncertainty.
A causal inference is an argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to a claim about an effect, or, conversely, from
knowledge of an effect to a claim about a cause. For example, from the knowledge that a bottle of wine had been accidentally left
in the freezer overnight, someone might conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect). Conversely, after tasting a piece of chicken
and finding it dry and tough, one might conclude that it had been overcooked (effect to cause).
Inductive
Inductive Indicators
indicators are “improbable,” “plausible,” “implausible,” “likely,” “unlikely,” and “reasonable to conclude.

● The vast majority of entertainers are extroverts.

● Stephen Colbert is an entertainer.
● Therefore, it is likely that Stephen Colbert is an extrovert .

● Deductive Indicator –
“certainly,” “absolutely,” “definitely.”
● If the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, the argument is clearly deductive. If not, then it
will be inductive.
● If we assume that the premises are true, then based on that assumption it is probable that the
conclusion is true.
● All inductive arguments depend on what philosophers call the uniformity of nature. According to this
principle, the future tends to replicate the past, and regularities that prevail in one spatial region tend
to prevail in other regions. For example, in the past, sugar has always tasted sweet.
According to the uniformity of nature, sugar will continue to taste sweet in the future.
Validity and Truth
● Any deductive argument having true premises and a false conclusion is necessarily
invalid.
● All inductive arguments depend on what philosophers call the uniformity of nature.
Day and night has a system. For so long, it has been seen that day follows the night
and vice-verca, we might say that even in the coming days, the same system will follow.
● All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at least 50 million years old.
Therefore, all dinosaur bone to be found will be at least 50 million years old.

 In general the strength or weakness of an inductive argument results not from the
actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion, but from the probabilistic
support the premises give to the conclusion.
Truth and Validity (Deductive Arguments)
● Validity is not something that is uniformly determined by the actual truth or falsity
of the premises and conclusion.
● All automakers are computer manufacturers.
● United Airlines is an automaker.
● Therefore, United Airlines is a computer manufacturer.

This has actually false premises and an actually false conclusion, yet the argument is valid.
All banks are financial institutions.
Wells Fargo is a financial institution.
Therefore, Wells Fargo is a bank.

● Any deductive argument having actually true premises and an actually false
conclusion is invalid.
● Only knowing the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion tells us nothing
about validity except in the one case of true premises and false conclusion.
Truth and Validity

● Premises Conclusion Validity

● TT? Premise concl valid
● T F Invalid usion ity
● FT? TT T Unkn
own
● FF?
T TTTTT FFFF Invali
● This FF d
F T Unkn
own

F F Unkn
own
Proposition
● The proposition we assert is not identical to that sentence.
● Two different sentences, consisting of different words, differently arranged, may
have the same meaning and may be used to assert the very same proposition.
● A proposition is a claim about how things are—it represents the world as being some way; it is true if the
world is that way, and otherwise it is false. They are claims about how things are. A proposition asserts that
something is the case or it asserts that something is not.
● The idea is that what the sentence says when uttered in a certain context—the claim it makes about the
world—is a proposition.
● “Leslie wins the election” and “The election was won by Leslie”
Proposition
● Proposition what the sentence asserts.
● propositions having no parts that are themselves propositions; Simple Proposition.
● The same words assert different propositions at different times.
The largest state in the United States was once an independent republic (P) .
The largest state in the US is Alaska (Q).
Basic propositions: Simple Proposition.
Compound propositions: propositions made up from other propositions and connectives.
● If The Amazon Basin produces roughly 20 percent of the Earth’s oxygen. Then it has big role to play in human lives. (P), and creates
much of its own rainfall (Q) and harbors many unknown species (R).
● conjunction: “p and q”. Truth Value – If P is true then
● A disjunctive proposition is plainly true, but either one of its components might be false.
● are hypothetical (or conditional) propositions.
● disjunction: “p or q”, conjunction: “p and q”, p ∨ q., Conditional or Hypothetical – If p then Q.
● Asserting a conjunctive proposition is equivalent to asserting each of its component propositions
separately.
● Only the “if–then” proposition is asserted by the hypothetical or conditional statement.
Deductive Logic and Categorical Propositions

● Aristotle—one of the trio, with Plato and Socrates, who largely founded Western
philosophy.
● Aristotle is the founder of logic. He founded his own school, the Lyceum,
● He classified the four kinds of categorical propositions in terms of their being
universal, particular, affirmative, and negative.
● He also developed the square of opposition, which shows how one such proposition
implies the truth or falsity of another.
● His treatises on logic is combined in a book called (The Organon “The Instrument”).
● Aristotle is universally recognized as the originator of logic. He defined logic as the study of
the process by which a statement follows by necessity from one or more other statements.
The most fundamental kind of statement, he thought, is the categorical proposition.
● Aristotelian logic is designated as classical logic.
Classical Logic
Classical logic deals mainly with arguments based on the relations of classes of
objects to one another.
● Class is a collection of all objects that have some specified characteristic in common.
● In a deductive argument we present propositions that state the relations between
one category (class) and some other category.
● No athletes are vegetarians.
● All football players are athletes.
● Therefore, no football players are vegetarians.
● All of one class may be included in all of another class. Thus, the class of all dogs is wholly included (or
wholly contained) in the class of all mammals.
● Some, but not all, of the members of one class may be included in another class. Thus, the class of all
athletes is partially included (or partially contained) in the class of all females.
● Two classes may have no members in common. Thus, the class of all triangles and the class of all circles
may be said to exclude one another.
● In a deductive argument we present propositions that state the relations between one category and some
other category.

● Categorical Proposition - A proposition that can be analyzed as being about classes, or categories,
affirming or denying that one class, S, is included in some other class, P, in whole or in part.
● There are four and only four kinds of standard-form of categorical propositions.
● Here are examples of each of the four kinds:
1. All politicians are liars. Universal Affirmative Propositions
2. No politicians are liars. Universal Negative propositions
3. Some politicians are liars. Particular Affirmative Propositions
4. Some politicians are not liars. Particular Negative Propositions
Universal Affirmative Propositions – (A)
● Universal affirmative propositions or A propositions.
● In these we assert that the whole of one class is included or contained in another
class. “All politicians are liars” (A) is an example; it asserts that every member of
one class, the class of politicians, is a member of another class, the class of liars.
● All (Quantifier) S (subject) is (copula) P (Predicate).
● Categorical propositions are often represented with diagrams that are called Venn
diagrams, named after the English logician and mathematician, John Venn (1834–
1923), who invented them.

aS p
Universal Negative Propositions - E Propositions

● It asserts that the subject class, (S), is wholly excluded from the predicate class, P.
● No S is P.
● This kind of proposition denies the relation of inclusion between the two terms, and
denies it universally.
● They are also called E propositions.
● “No politicians are liars,” is a proposition in which it is denied, universally, that any
member of the class of politicians is a member of the class of liars. It asserts that
the subject class, S, is wholly excluded from the predicate class, P.
Particular Affirmative propositions. I Propositions
● the assertion that the class of politicians and the class of liars have some member
or members in common.
● At least one member of the team is included in the class. “Some politicians are
liars,”.
● This proposition does not affirm or deny anything about the class of all politicians.
Some S is P.
● At least one member of the class designated by the subject term S is also a
member of the class designated by the predicate term P.
● It affirms it only partially: that is, it is affirmed of some particular member, or
members, of the first class.

S x p
Particular Negative Propositions - O Propositions.
● At least one member of the class designated by the subject term S is excluded from
the whole of the class designated by the predicate term P.
● It does not affirm the inclusion of some member or members of the first class in the
second class; this is precisely what is denied.
● Some S is not P.
● “Some politicians are not liars,” like the third, does not refer to politicians universally,
but only to some member or members of that class; it is particular.

x
In each of the four standard forms a relation is expressed between a subject class and
a predicate class.
● All S is P. A Universal affirmative All lawyers are wealthy people.

● No S is P. E Universal negative No criminals are good citizens.

● Some S is P. I Particular affirmative Some chemicals are poisons.

● Some S is not P. O Particular negative Some insects are not pests.

Quality,
● An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the proposition affirms or
denies class inclusion.
● Every standard-form categorical proposition either affirms, or denies.
● If the proposition affirms some class inclusion, whether complete or partial, its quality is
affirmative.
● The A proposition, “All S is P,” and the I proposition, “Some S is P,” are both affirmative in
quality.
● A and I, are thought to come from the Latin word, “Affirmo,” meaning “I affirm.
● If the proposition denies class inclusion, whether complete or partial, its quality is negative. So
the E proposition, “No S is P,” and the O proposition, “Some S is not P,” are both negative in
quality.
● Their letter names, E and O, are thought to come from the Latin word, “nEgO,”
meaning “I deny.”
• Every categorical proposition has one quality or the other, affirmative or negative.
Quantity
• An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the proposition refers to
all members or only some members of the class designated by its subject terms. Thus, every
proposition is either Universal in quantity or particular in quantity.
● Every standard-form categorical proposition has some class as its subject.
● If the proposition refers to “all members” of the class (DOG) designated by its subject term, its
quantity is universal.
● The A proposition, “All S is P,” and the E proposition, “No S is P,” are both universal in quantity.
● If the proposition refers only to some members of the class designated by its subject term, its
quantity is particular.
● I proposition, “Some S is P,” and the O proposition, “Some S is not P,” are both particular in
quantity.
● Recognizing the beginning of the words specifies if the proposition is universal; “some”
indicates that the proposition is particular.
● All,” “no,” are universal; “some” and “some not” proposition is particular.
Propositions & Copula (Connectives)

● Every standard-form categorical proposition must be either affirmative or negative,

and must be either universal or particular,
● Each one of the four standard forms by indicating its quantity and its quality:
universal affirmative (A), particular affirmative (I), universal negative (E), particular
negative (O).
● Between the subject and predicate terms of every standard-form of categorical
proposition occurs some form of the verb “to be.”
● “Some Roman emperors were monsters” or “Some soldiers will not be heroes”), “All
squares are rectangles” “All squares are not rectangles”.
● This verb (accompanied by “not” in the case of the O proposition) serves to connect
the subject and predicate terms and is called the “copula”.
● In these examples, “were,” “are,” are not, and “will not be” serve as copulas.
Propositions, terms and Distributions.
● Categorical propositions are regarded as being about classes, the classes of objects designated by the
“subject” (S) and “predicate” (P) terms.
● The ways in which terms can occur in categorical propositions, we introduce the technical term
“distribution”.
● Distribution is an attribute that describes the relationship between a categorical proposition and each
one of its terms, indicating whether or not the proposition makes a statement about every member of the
class represented by a given term.
● Any proposition distributes a term if it refers to all members of the class designated by that term.
● A proposition may refer to classes in different ways; it may refer to all members of a class or refer to
only some members of that class.
● “All senators are citizens,” refers to, or is about, all senators, but it does not refer to all citizens. Every A
proposition is thus seen to refer to all members of the class S, but does not refer to all members of the
class designated by its predicate term, P.
● In A propositions (universal affirmatives) the subject term is distributed, but the predicate term is
undistributed.
E Propositions
● “No athletes are vegetarians”.
● The subject term, “athletes,” is distributed, because the whole class of athletes is said to be
excluded from the class of vegetarians.
● It is also asserted that the whole class of vegetarians is excluded from the class of athletes.
● E proposition refers to all members of the class designated by its predicate term, and
therefore also distributes its predicate term.
● E propositions (universal negatives) distribute both their subject and their predicate
terms.
I and O Propositions
● “Some soldiers are cowards”
● No assertion is made about all soldiers in this proposition, and no assertion is made about all
cowards either.
● It says nothing about each and every soldier, and nothing about each and every coward.
Neither class is wholly included, or wholly excluded, from the other.
● In I propositions (particular affirmatives) both subject and predicate terms are undistributed.
O Propositions -
● Some horses are not thoroughbreds”.
● Nothing is said about all horses. The proposition refers to some members of the
class designated by the subject term: it says, of this part of the class of horses, that it is
excluded from the class of all thoroughbreds. But they are excluded from the whole of the latter
class.
● In O propositions (particular negatives) the subject term is not distributed, but the predicate
term is distributed.
● We thus see that universal propositions, both affirmative and negative, distribute
their subject terms.
● Particular propositions, whether affirmative or negative, do not distribute their
subject terms.
● The quantity of any standard-form categorical proposition determines whether its
subject term is distributed or undistributed.
● We likewise see that affirmative propositions, whether universal or particular, do not
distribute their predicate terms. (A & I).
● Negative propositions (E & O), both universal and particular, do distribute their
predicate terms.
● Thus the quality of a standard-form categorical proposition determines whether
its predicate term is distributed or undistributed.
● The A proposition distributes only its subject term; the E proposition
distributes both its subject and predicate terms.
● The I proposition distributes neither its subject nor its predicate term; and the O
proposition distributes only its predicate term.
Inductive Logic - Argument by Analogy
● An inductive argument claims that its premises give only some degree of probability.
● Our reasoning process usually begins with the accepted truth of some “matters
of fact”.
● In the realm of induction, as we seek new knowledge of facts about the world
nothing is beyond all doubt. We must rely on arguments that support their
conclusions only as probable, or probably true.
● The most common type of inductive argument relies on analogy.
● Analogy is the common ground of our everyday inferences from past experience to
what the future will hold.
● what we commonly think to be prudent and fair, that it would be prudent and fair to
adopt now a major change in public policy.
● The conclusion does not follow from a logical necessity, neither it follows with the
certainty.
We may observe a very great similitude between this earth which we inhabit, and the other
planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury. They all revolve around the sun, as the earth
does, although at different distances and in different periods. They borrow all their light from the
sun, as the earth does. Several of them are known to revolve around their axis like the earth, and
by that means, must have a like succession of day and night. Some of them have moons, that
serve to give them light in the absence of the sun, as our moon does to us. They are all, in their
motions, subject to the same law of gravitation, as the earth is. From all this similitude, it is not
unreasonable to think that those planets may, like our earth, be the habitation of various orders of
living creatures. There is some probability in this conclusion from analogy.

What is an Analogy ?
A parallel drawn between two (or more) entities by indicating one or more respects in which they are similar.
● Thus, An analogy between two or more entities is to indicate one or more respects in which they are similar.
● A new car purchase, I am now contemplating will be very satisfactory because my old car, of the same
make and model, has long given very satisfactory service .
 The two entities that are said to be similar are two cars.
 Three points of analogy are involved, three respects in which the two entities are said to resemble each
other: first, in being cars; second, in being of the same make and model; and third, in serving me well.
 When we treat analogy as an argument, the three points of analogy do not play identical roles in the
argument.
 The first two occur in the premises, whereas the third occurs both in the premises and in the conclusion.
 First, that two things are similar in two respects, and second, that one of those things has a further
characteristic, from which the conclusion is drawn that the other thing also has that further
characteristic.
 Analogical argument is one of the most fundamental tools of appellate courts. The inference in a
particular case before a court may be shown to be very much like some other inference drawn
previously, and if it was clearly correct in that earlier case, it is held to be correct in this one too.
● Analogical argument is a kind of inductive argument in which, from the fact that two
entities are alike in some respect(s), it is concluded that they are also alike in some
other respect(s).
● Analogical argument is also common in political controversy. Sometimes the
analogy is effective, sometimes it is far-fetched.

The threat of global warming, and the need of our country to respond concretely to that
threat, was argued heatedly before the Congress of the United States, in 2007, by
former presidential candidate Al Gore, who described the danger as a “planetary
emergency.” Against those who thought him to be exaggerating the dangers, he then
argued: The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever you go to the doctor. If the
doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say “I read a science-fiction novel
that says it’s not a problem.” You take action.
● Every analogy argument precedes from the similarity from two or more things in one or two more
respects to the similarity of those things in some future respect. Schematically where A, B, C and D are
any entity and P, Q and R are any attributes or “respect” an analogical argument may be presented as
● A B C, D all have attributes P and Q
● A B C all have attribute R
● Therefore D probably have the attribute R.
● Analogical arguments are evaluated as better or worse depending on the degree
of probability with which, relying on the premises they put forward, their conclusions
may be affirmed.
Suppose you choose to purchase a given pair of shoes because other pairs like it have given you
satisfaction in the past; and suppose you select a dog of a given breed because other dogs of that same
breed have exhibited the characteristics that you prize. In both cases, analogical arguments have been
relied on. To appraise the strength of these sample arguments, and indeed of all analogical arguments,
six criteria may be distinguished.
1- Number of entities –
● As a general rule, the larger the number of entities—that is, cases in our experience
—the stronger the argument.
● Several experiences of the same kind with an item of just that sort will support the
conclusion—that the purchase will be satisfying— much more than will a single
instance.
● Each instance may be thought of as an additional entity, and the number of entities
is the first criterion in evaluating an analogical argument.
2- Variety of the instances in the premises –
The more dissimilar the instances mentioned only in the premises of an analogical
argument, the stronger is the argument.
3- Number of similar respects -
● The greater the number of respects in which the entity in the conclusion is similar
to the entities in the premises, the more probable is that conclusion.
4- Relevance -
As important as the number of respects shared is the kind of respects, in which, the instances in
the premises are like the instance in the conclusion. If the new pair of shoes, like the previous
pairs, is purchased on a Tuesday, that is a likeness that will have no bearing on the utility of the
shoes.
• Respects add to the force of the argument when they are relevant, a single highly relevant
factor contributes more to the argument than a host of irrelevant similarities.
● One attribute is relevant to another when it is connected to that other, when there is some
kind of causal relation between them. That is why identifying causal connections of one kind
or another is critical in analogical arguments, and why establishing such connections is often
crucial in determining the admissibility of evidence, as relevant or irrelevant, in a court of law.
● Analogical arguments can be probable whether they go from cause to effect or from effect to cause. They can even be
probable when the attribute in the premise is neither the cause nor the effect of the conclusion’s attribute, provided
both are the effect of the same cause.
● A doctor, noting the presence of a certain symptom in her patient, may predict another symptom accurately not
because either symptom is the cause of the other, but because they are jointly caused by the same disorder.
● The causal connections that are the key to the evaluation of analogical arguments can be discovered only empirically,
by observation and experiment. The general theory of empirical investigation is the central concern of inductive logic.
5- Disanalogies -
A disanalogy is a point of difference, a respect in which the case we are reasoning about in our conclusion is
distinguishable from the cases on which the argument is based.
● In an analogical argument, a point of difference between the cases cited in the
premises and the case mentioned in the conclusion.
6. Claim that the conclusion makes –
● Every argument makes the claim that its premises give reasons to accept its conclusion.
● It is easy to see that the more one claims, the greater the burden of sustaining that claim, and
that is obviously true for every analogical argument.
● The modesty of the conclusion relative to the premises is critical in determining the merit of
the inference.
● The more modest the claim, the less burden is placed on the premises and the stronger the argument; the
bolder the claim, the greater is the burden on the premises and the weaker the argument.
● An analogical argument is strengthened by reducing the claim made on the basis of the premises
affirmed, or by retaining the claim unchanged while supporting it with additional or more powerful
premises.
● An analogical argument is weakened if its conclusion is made bolder while its premises remain
unchanged, or if the claim remains unchanged while the evidence in its support is found to exhibit
greater frailty.
How to refute an analogical argument

● We refute an argument by using another argument that may have the same form.
● In the inductive argument, we can refute an argument by presenting another similar
argument.
● However, the argument must be flawed and its conclusion shall be very doubtful.
For example, Caste system in India.
● When people say we do not have caste system in India and someone wants to
refute this argument, they may use the example where people from different caste
are not allowed to marry each other. Same goes for marital rape cases and “Love
Jihad” and law against it.
● To refute an argument, the counter argument must have the two basic forms.
● You might just as well say
● It might even be said that
Causal reasoning
● A causal reasoning is some effect is inferred from what is assumed to be the cause. Or vice
versa.
● Thing do not just happen but everything in this world has a system, namely there are some
Conditions.
● Such conditions can be discussed in the form of necessary and sufficient conditions.
● A necessary condition for the occurrence of a specified event is a circumstance in whose
absence the event cannot occur.

For example, the presence of oxygen is a necessary condition for combustion to

occur. If combustion occurs, then oxygen must have been present, because in the
absence of oxygen there can be no combustion.
● Necessary condition A circumstance (or set of circumstances) in whose absence a given
event cannot occur.
● A sufficient condition for the occurrence of an event is a circumstance in whose presence
the event must occur.
● The presence of oxygen is a necessary condition for combustion, as we noted, but it is not a
sufficient condition for combustion to occur—because it is obvious that oxygen can be
present without combustion occurring.
• A circumstance (or set of circumstances) whose presence ensures the occurrence of a given
event.
● There is some range of temperature such that being in that range of temperature in the
presence of oxygen is a sufficient condition for the combustion of that substance.
● The word “cause” is used (with respect to some event) sometimes to mean “the necessary
condition of that event,” and sometimes to mean “the sufficient condition of that event.”
3- Causal Laws and the Uniformity of Nature

 Every use of the word “cause,” whether in everyday life or in science, involves or
presupposes the doctrine that cause and effect are uniformly connected.
 Similar causes produce similar effects.
 Every occurrence of a cause producing some effect is an instance or example of
the general causal law that such circumstances are always accompanied by such
phenomena.
 Every assertion that a particular circumstance was the cause of a particular
phenomenon implies the existence of some causal law, every assertion of causal
connection contains a critical element of generality.
Causal Laws

 Every occurrence of a cause producing some effect is an instance or example of the general
causal law that such circumstances are always accompanied by such phenomena.
 Asserting a necessary connection between events of two kinds, of which one is the cause
and the other the effect is the general causal relation.
 Causal laws can be discovered only empirically, a posteriori, by an appeal to experience.
 Every assertion of causal connection contains a critical element of generality.

 A causal law, as we use the term, asserts that a circumstance of such-and-such kind is
invariably attended by a phenomenon of a specified kind, no matter where or when it
occurs.
 Our aim is to establish a general causal relation.
 The causal relation is not purely logical or deductive.
 Causal laws can be discovered only empirically, a posteriori, by an appeal to
experience. But our experiences are always of particular circumstances, particular
phenomena, and particular sequences of them.
 Our aim is to establish a general causal relation.
 How are we to get from the particulars we experience to the general proposition ?
 All cases of C are attended by P— which is involved in saying that C causes P?
 How are we to get from the particulars we experience to the general proposition
that Q causes P?
 The process of arriving at universal propositions from the particular facts of
experience is called inductive generalization.
Induction by Simple Enumeration
 Simple enumeration is often used in establishing causal connections.
 When a number of instances of a phenomenon are invariably accompanied by a
certain type of circumstance, one may assume the existence of a causal relationship
between them.
Since the circumstance of dipping blue litmus paper in acid is accompanied in all
observed instances by the phenomenon of the paper turning red, we infer by simple
enumeration that dipping blue litmus paper in acid is the cause of its turning red. The
analogical character of such an argument is quite apparent.
 Some arguments by simple enumeration may establish their conclusions with a
higher degree of probability than others.
 The greater the number of instances appealed to, the greater is the probability of
the conclusion.
Mill’s five methods of causality
 Jhon Stuart Mill compiled 5 methods for identifying the general causal relations.
 (Cannon of Induction)

 Method of agreement
 Method of difference
 Joint method of agreement and difference
 Method of residues
 Method of concomitant variation.
 Method of Agreement-
● The method of agreement consists in a systematic effort to find a single factor that is
common to several occurrences for the purpose of identifying that factor as the cause of a
phenomenon present in the occurrences (such as the sickness).
● The method of agreement identifies a cause in the sense of a necessary condition.
● Thus to specify the cause of the phenomena we begin by eliminating the conditions that are
not necessary for the occurrence of the phenomenon.
● The rule that a condition is not necessary for the occurrence of a phenomenon if that
condition is absent when the phenomenon is present.
Five people eat dinner in a restaurant. Jack has salad, french fries, a hamburger, ice cream, and mixed
vegetables; Bob has salad, french fries, soup, ice cream, fish, and mixed vegetables; Mary has a hamburger,
soup, and ice cream; Tim has fish, mixed vegetables, ice cream, salad, and soup; and Gail has mixed
vegetables, fish, ice cream, french fries, and salad. Afterwards, all of them became sick from something they
ate. What food caused the sickness?
● A B C D occur together with w x y z.
● A E F G occur together with w t u v.
● Therefore A is the cause (or the effect) of w.

● A pattern of inductive inference in which it is concluded that, if two or more instances of a

given phenomenon have only one circumstance in common, that one common circumstance
is the cause (or effect) of the phenomenon.
● Whenever we find a single circumstance common to all instances of a given phenomenon,
we may rightly conclude that we have located at least the region of its cause.

● The method of agreement eliminates as possible causes those circumstances in whose

absence the phenomenon can nevertheless occur.
The Method of Difference

● The method of difference consists in a systematic effort to identify a single factor that is
present in an occurrence in which the phenomenon (effect) in question is present, and
absent from an occurrence in which the phenomenon is absent.
• The method is confined to investigating exactly two occurrences, and it identifies a
cause in the sense of a sufficient condition. For a clearer illustration of how this method
works, let us add a few details to the twin example:
A pair of twins, Jane and Jan, have dinner in a restaurant. The twins have identical susceptibilities to
food poisoning. Jane orders soup, salad, chicken, carrots, rice, and ice cream. Jan orders soup, salad,
chicken, carrots, rice, and no ice cream. Later, Jane gets sick from something she ate, but Jan does not.
What food caused Jane’s sickness?
• In this case we use the rule that a condition is not sufficient for the occurrence of a
phenomenon if it is present when the phenomenon is absent.
● This pattern focuses not on what is common among those cases in which the
effect is produced, but on what is different between those cases in which the effect is produced
and those in which it is not.
● A pattern of inductive inference in which, when cases in which a given phenomenon occurs
differ in only one circumstance from cases in which the phenomenon does not occur, that
circumstance is inferred to be causally connected to the phenomenon.

● A B C D occur together with w x y z.

● B C D occur together with x y z.
● Therefore A is the cause, or the effect, or an indispensable part of the cause of w.

• The method of difference permits the elimination of some possible causes by removing an
antecedent factor shown to be critical.
The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference
● It is the combined use of the method of agreement and the method of difference in the same
investigation.
● A pattern of inductive inference in which the method of agreement and the method of
difference are used in combination to give the conclusion a higher degree of probability.
● It can be represented schematically (capital letters denoting circumstances, lowercase letters
denoting phenomena) as follows:
● A B C — x y z. (Method of agreement) A B C — x y z.
● A D E — x t w. B C — y z. (Difference)
● Therefore A is the effect, or the cause, or an indispensable part of the cause, of x.
• Among all those young residents of the community who became immune to hepatitis A, there was
only one relevant circumstance in common: All the immunes had received the new vaccine. By
itself, this strongly tended to show that the vaccine did cause that immunity. The method of
difference supported this conclusion overwhelmingly: The circumstances of those who did become
immune and those who did not were essentially alike in every respect except one, the administration
of the vaccine to the immune residents.
● The circumstances of those who did become immune and those who did not were essentially alike in
every respect.
● The testing of new drugs or procedures is often conducted in what are called “double-arm” trials,
one group receiving the new treatment while the other group does not, after which (in suitable cases)
there may be a carefully executed crossover, in a second phase, in which those who originally did
not receive the treatment do so, and those who originally did receive the treatment do not.

● The application of the joint method of agreement and difference underlies such investigations,
which are common and exceedingly productive.
The Method of Residues
● A pattern of inductive inference in which, when some portions of a given phenomenon are
known to be the effects of certain identified antecedents, we conclude that the remaining
portion of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents.
● A B C — x y z.
● B is known to be the cause of y.
● C is known to be the cause of z.
● Therefore A is the cause of x.

● The method of residues seeks to eliminate as possible causes those circumstances whose
effects have already been established by previous inductions.
E. The Method of Concomitant Variation
● A pattern of inductive inference in which it is concluded that, when one phenomenon varies consistently
with some other phenomenon in some manner, there is some causal relation between the two
phenomena.
● B C — x y z.
● A+ B C — x+ y z.
● Therefore A and x are causally connected.

Analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau reveals that, in every decade since the 1940s, and in every region of the
country, couples who were the parents of only girls divorced more often than couples who were the parents of only boys. It
happened among whites and among blacks, among those with only high school diplomas and among those with college
degrees. Parents with an only child who is a girl are 6 percent more likely to split up than parents of a single boy. The gap
rises to 8 percent for parents of two girls versus parents of two boys, 10 percent for families with three girls, and 13
percent if there are four girls. Thousands upon thousands of U.S. divorces appear to stem partly from the number of girls in
the family.

• When the increase of one phenomenon parallels the increase of another, we say that the phenomena vary
directly with each other.